My Clubs

The Golden Age of Gaming Is Over

If you were a kid in the 80s and 90s; then you grew up in the golden age of video games, and like the VHS and the video rental industry, it is over. You lived through an era and the era is gone. You might not have yet realized this; you may have been asking yourself in recent years, is the magic gone or is it just me, "am I just not into games anymore?" I believe the answer is yes, gaming has turned into something different and less than it once was, and no, it's not that I just don't like games anymore; it's that I'm all out of road. There comes a day when you've played it all, when you've seen all the worlds; when the interfaces are built to play the games from the previous hardware rather than the games of tomorrow, and you realize you're just doing the same stuff again.

The industry has changed. It has become self serving and insular; creating games for a rabid small group of repeat buyers. What do those gamers want? More, always more. Eight dungeons in a Legend of Zelda game aren't enough; they want twelve, no seventeen. Why even make a world-- they clearly just want a string of levels. Who has time to play these games? It's no longer a 15 hour quest; it's 40-100 hours in some games today. Accessibility and replayability have been put down in favor of games that just go on and on. The root of the change has been this belief that games are a good avenue for telling stories, but they are not. The story of a game is the story of playing the game, and developers trying to make movies of video games need to just go make movies.

The only place left for gamers to go is the undiscovered country of their imaginations as the player graduates to creator. Players can not only build and share levels thanks to features like Forge in Halo, but now they can build entire games on their own using ROM editors. The gamer doesn’t have to be hired by Nintendo to build a (2D) Zelda game-- all they need is imagination and the design capability. The reason this is important is because, like with painting or writing, the audience has to be able to create their own games in order for the medium to ever qualify as art.

Comments (11)

Agreed

With the lifespan of this current generation's consoles, the flood of cinematic experiences over actual gameplay, and just the saturation of FPSs in general, gaming has plateaued. I think that's the reason behind the retro reinassance that sprung up in recent years: they used to actually focus on the game itself. A game is now defined as merely completing a narrative, go obtain an item that is clearly marked on your map by boringly traversing the game's environment, or simply push the button at the right moment. What the hell, video games? If this trend persists, count me out. I'll go back to music.

Can't tell if you're joking or serious....

"Eight dungeons in a Legend of Zelda game aren't enough; they want twelve, no seventeen. Why even make a world; they clearly just want a string of levels. Who has time to play these games? It's no longer a 15 hour quest; it's 40-100 hours in some games today."

I guess I fail how longer and better games for my money is a bad thing. Old games in the 80's and 90's literally had no replay value other than secret levels (which still exist today). Most games back then were extremely linear, enemies acted in same fashion every time, and most didn't even have different levels of diffculty.

Cinematics in gaming havn't really changed, technology just caught up. Instead of motionless sprites and word bubbles we have actual actors and diolague. Again I fail to see how these are bad things. The only game that took cinematics was to far are the MGS games.

Not trying to be mean but I really just don't agree. I also don't agree with having to build my own games in ordered to enjoy them. It's a little contradictory to say games take 100's of hours to play when building even a the simplest of games takes 100's of hours to make. Lots of education is needed to.

Game longevity would be better if....

...they varied the missions, and incorporate fun game mechanics. The gameplay today, to say the least, is very uninspiring. It's like they focus all their energy and concentrate on spectacular set pieces and attempt to be Hollywood screenwriters with their narratives. Gameplay itself is mostly filler content by just adding in guns. True, there are exceptions as your profile photo indicates, but replayability doesn't automatically yield a good game. A game should require skill and strategy.

This is all a matter of opinion

Classic Mario games didn't exactly have varying missions and levels. Most all side scrollers consit of jumping, shooting, and avoiding get hit. Games back then were made painstaking difficult to eat coins. Half the difficulty came from just trying to master shitty controls.

I was trying to make the same point about replay ability :)

Personally I think games are better than they've ever been. A lot are crap but the good games are exceptional. There's enough good games to keep the average gamer statisfied.

More time and money spent on cutscenes and voice actors

is less time and money spent on developing substantial challenges, intricate and interacting systems, emergent play possibilities, and strategic depth. It also limits the breadth and of dialog interactions you can have in RPGs, which is a step back from something like Planescape:Torment.

The problem with long games is that the vast majority of them have tons of filler to pad out the length, content that offers no challenge or progression. How many shitty fetch quests does a game need? How many dungeons with simple minded puzzles, trash mobs, mini-games, cutscenes, scripted events? 10 hours of rock solid content, challenge and player engagement is more value than 50 out of 80 hours of fluff and busy work

Explain how 80s and 90s games like Ultima Underworld, Baldur's Gate, Legend of Zelda, Wing Commander, Daggerfall, Thief, Master of Orion, Civilization, Sim City, Super Metroid, Ultima 5 are short or have no replay value. There are plenty of games that can match today's games in length and replay value, easily.

Now, I have to say that no one is forcing anyone to finish any of 80 hour games. I usually play until the filler becomes too much to bear and move on to something else. As long is there at least 15 hours of meaty play and interesting content, I'm fine with over long games. No, the kinds of games that bother me are the watered down sequels and reboots of classic PC games, and the overall shallowness of western AAA games. I don't see how stripping out interesting features and lowering the overall level of depth, choices, and interactivity amounts to games being better than ever.

response

"I don't see how stripping out interesting features and lowering the overall level of depth, choices, and interactivity amounts to games being better than ever. "

I totally disagree if thats what you think defines modern games. I've onle seen greater depth in those areas.

Also

"less time and money spent on developing substantial challenges, intricate and interacting systems, emergent play possibilities, and strategic depth."

Division of Labor bud. The same people developing substantial challenges, intricate and interacting systems, emergent play possibilities, and strategic depth aren't the people worring about the voice actors. Devs now days consist of 100's of people with different tasks and responsibilities.

I actually hated The Witcher 2 for those exact reasons. Dumb as heck side missions and filler crap.

I will choose Demon's/Dark Souls, Batman AA/AC, Mass Effect, GTA, Red Dead Redemption, L4D, Halo, and Bioshock over all those games you listed any day.

response

In the 80s and 90s games really did not have to have replayability built in to play them again, they were just fun to replay. Some games you replayed just to get better, but some you replayed for the hell of it. I have probably played SMB 3 from straight through without warping 100 times, along with many other classics from the 8/16bit era. I think the big difference however was that it was/is feasable to do so.

Now, I am an adult with responsibilities, and I still love playing my games, but when a game takes 60 hours to complete I don't have the time to replay it if I wanted to. My time is so limited as it is that it can take me 3 weeks to finish a game, but I can sit down and blow through Sonic 2 in a single evening.

Gaming has changed, now its more about the flash than the substance but this is not always the case, there are a lot of games out there today I have enjoyed just as much as the classics but there are definately less of them, and I probably won't play through them again at least for several years. I don't have the time or patience for "fluffed out" games, but if the game is 60 hours of substance then im all for it.

And Wing Commander was my all time favorite game series back in the day, so props for mentioning it.

Replay Value

The simplest way to address replay value for me is to look at the 2D Zelda games vs the 3D Zelda games. I've tried to play through Wind Waker again at least four times with other people; and every time, interest evaporates after five hours are spent just getting the adventure going. The rest of the 3D Zelda games; I don't even have a desire to play again. They are not designed the same as the old games; they are too heavily focused on dungeons, they are not free-roam experiences, and they are weighted down with hours of bubble text and tutorials. Tutorials defeat the whole intent of trying to get kids to play Zelda. My four year old nephew is not interested in watching me tap A for three hours before being forced on a path taking me to three islands (with two dungeons) before I can set him loose on the open ocean.

The original game gave you one line of text and a sword, and you were free to wander off where your heart led you. Now they want you to meet twelve NPCs that have 30 pages of prologue to regurgitate before you're allowed to leave the village.

Dustin

Actually, many rpgs in the past were longer than they are today. Sure, you have games akin to Skyrim but the Elder Scrolls series is popular for its' old school rpg conventions. By comparison you can beat Mass Effect 2 in roughly 25-30 hours and you can beat Witcher 2 in 35-40 hours. When you compare that to 60-100 hours spent with Persona 3 fes, Final Fantasy 12, Shadowhearts covenant, FF tactics, Divinity,Ultima, Dragonquest, and Fallout 2 you begin to realize rpgs started their life spans as massive behemoths in the first place.

However, I totally agree with everything else! I miss the days when "dlc content" was "unlockable content" and it's as if the gaming industry punishes any developer who tries to actually be creative. So sad!

On the brightside, certain games are actually rewarded for being imaginative. It's merely a less common occurence. Also, at least we have a flourishing indie scene!